Strong Safety Rules for Taxis and Uber

Popular and fast-growing companies like Uber and Lyft have advertised themselves as superior in nearly every way to traditional taxi services. Not least among these lofty claims is the assertion that they are safer than taxis.

This may or may not be true. What is true is that Uber and Lyft generally do not require their drivers to submit to the kinds of background checks that local and state regulators require for taxi operators. These companies can hardly claim to be a cut above the others when they have failed to meet even baseline standards.

The importance of strong background checks was underscored by news that a driver working for Uber in New Delhi has been accused of raping a passenger. In San Francisco, a driver who was working for Uber struck and killed a 6-year-old girl last year on New Year’s Eve. In both cases, the drivers had driving or arrest records that should have sent up red flags. (Uber has said it does not conduct criminal background checks on drivers it uses in India and has suspended its service in Delhi while it reviews that policy.)

Companies like Uber and Lyft insist that they screen drivers carefully and that the private security firms they use are as good or better than the traditional fingerprint-based background checks regulators have long used. The security firms, they say, check driving histories, court files, sex-offender registries and other public records. Such background checks, Uber and Lyft argue, can be completed in a day or two, much faster than a conventional fingerprint-based check. Last week, Uber said it would step up screening of drivers around the world by using polygraph tests and other methods.

Regulators and law enforcement agencies beg to differ. Private security companies, they say, often use incomplete or outdated databases that are less comprehensive than traditional fingerprint-based checks, which are constantly updated. Governments with fingerprint databases can also alert taxi authorities to each new arrest of a regulated driver. Companies like Uber and Lyft have to check in with the private security firms on a regular basis to keep tabs on their drivers.

The patchwork of state regulations, often written at the behest of corporate lobbyists, does not help matters. Colorado, for instance, has different background check requirements for taxis and companies like Uber and Lyft. So does California. In New York City, however, the Taxi and Limousine Commission requires a common standard for background checks.

The truth is no system for criminal background checks is perfect. The F.B.I.’s fingerprint database does not always contain information about whether an arrest led to a conviction, for example; Congress clearly needs to improve that system. But that doesn’t mean basic standards shouldn’t apply to drivers in all services. Consumers have a right to expect proper vetting whether they are hailing a cab or summoning a car from an app on their cellphone.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Strong Safety Rules for Taxis and Uber. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe